Education under Communism
The family and the education of children
Without the foundation of a good education in a traditional family environment, society will invariably weaken too much to survive
It is no accident that the Communists are so strongly opposed to the family and the education of children.
These social institutions are extremely important. They serve as an essential foundation for nurturing and protecting children, which promotes a stable and healthy society. These values are a direct threat to communist hegemony.
As a parent, I can attest to the unconditional love someone feels for their children. It’s something most parents can understand. It creates unsurpassed altruism and loyalty within the family unit—a powerful bond that further threatens the collective obedience demanded by totalitarian ideologies such as communism.
It is for this reason that communists oppose the family, seeking not only to destroy it but also to usurp the role that parents play in raising children. In this way, they can build their new society out of the past, while creating a new order out of their chaos.
The Communist Manifesto
Historically, Communist hostility to the family and education is well documented, although apologists deny or overlook its importance. Only by reading “The Communist Manifesto” we can clear any doubt up, as in chapter two it says: “Abolition of the family! This infamous proposal of the communists inflamed even the most radical”.
The “Manifesto” says that the family is based on capital and private gain, declaring that “the bourgeois family will naturally disappear when its complement disappears, and both will disappear with the disappearance of capital”. Communists believe that this will be a liberating process, in which children will be “liberated” from their parents.
The authors of the “Manifesto”, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, reject any objection to their opinion saying: “Do you accuse us of wanting to prevent the exploitation of children by their parents? So we plead guilty to this crime.”
Some say that it was Engels who really wanted to abolish the family. Since much of communist ideology is devoted to the communist cultural transformation of society (with the family being the focus), it would be an illusion to think that Marx was a passive witness.
Engels expanded even further in his seminal treatise, “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”, but Marx himself had an equal passion for cultural destruction. In fact, Marxism is a cultural rather than an economic ideology.
Marx and Engels believed that the family is the basis of “capitalist” and “bourgeois” society. They argued that “the family exists only among the bourgeoisie” and that there is a “practical absence of the family between the proletariat and public prostitution”. To correct this, they believed that community life should replace the family.
Relations would no longer be monogamous, and they rejected the protests because the bourgeoisie “takes the greatest pleasure in seducing the wives of others.” As with the modern left, they throw moral arguments back on their opponents, as if one mistake justified another.
Second wave feminism and communism
The family is even more harmed in the “Manifesto” when it says that “the bourgeoisie sees the wife as a mere instrument of production”. This oppressive and gloomy perspective on family life that they painted in the “Manifesto”, along with Engels’ treatise, was to become the blueprints of modern feminism.
Some argue that feminism initially had noble intentions, but by the second wave of the 1960s it was already fully aligned with Marxist thought.
Radical opposition to the family also inspired the Maoist revolutionaries who took power in China. Maoism extended Marxism-Leninism adapted to Chinese nationalism, although it kept fundamental aspects of communist thought that extended into cultural life. It became common for Marxist revolutionaries in the 20th century to lie about their true ideological beliefs until they came to power, as seen in Cuba, Cambodia and elsewhere.
During the Great Leap Forward, just as the second wave of feminists was taking off, a collectivist-style government that centralized everything in Chinese society abandoned this facade. As part of this policy, the collectivization of agriculture banned and replaced private agriculture.
They forced parents to work long hours while state nannies looked after their children. Tens of millions starved to death when Mao refused to acknowledge the horrible suffering he caused.
Communist Kindergarten
Childcare is now the norm because they has systematically indoctrinated women into thinking that being a housewife is a wasted life. Many studies show that children suffer when not cared for by their parents in the early years of life and that more than eight hours a week of preschool can be harmful.
Counterstudies try to refute this, just like anything else that contradicts far left ideology. Some parents are lucky that grandparents help, but many spend a fortune on child care, which represents a large percentage of their income. Alternatively, it can be financed by taxpayers, which increases the bloated government’s spending.
Where does this mindset that causes parents to miss out on the precious early years of their children’s growth comes from? The answer is obvious to those investigating communism.
The more socialist the government, the more it intrudes on family life.
From Stalin’s Young Pioneers in the Soviet Union, who turned youth organizations into instruments of indoctrination, to Israel’s Kibbutz — where collectives share everything from clothing to housing, family life is replaced by community life. Many call this cradle-to-grave system the “nanny state,” though it’s a mere euphemism for an Orwellian-style government that abhors any responsibility on the part of the state.
A more recent example of this intrusion into family life is the Scottish National Party’s attempt to introduce a nominee scheme in 2016. This is another Orwellian euphemism. In this case, it allows the state to monitor family life and transfer parental rights to a state official, who can be anyone from a teacher to a social worker. A nominee would be assigned to each family, with the power to overrule the parents’ judgment, keep private records on family life, and visit the home without parental consent. A
lthough the PNE says the scheme would not be mandatory, law would assign each child to a nominee, making the objection irrelevant.
Fortunately, the scheme was outlawed by the UK Supreme Court, but that didn’t stop the PNE from trying to get in through the back door. The PNE is part of an obscure communist legacy shrouded in false nationalism, just like the Maoists in China. Wherever the Communists go, you will find that family life is harmed and attacked, whether culturally or legally.
But without the foundation of a good education in a traditional family environment, society will invariably weaken too much to survive.
Follow our profile for more content about Anti-Communism, Brazil and South America!
About the Creator
Borba de Souza
Writer and business founder that enjoys writing about history and culture.
Founder of Small Business Hacks https://www.youtube.com/c/SmallBusinessHacks and https://expatriateconsultancy.com. My published books: https://amzn.to/3tyxDe0
Keep reading
More stories from Borba de Souza and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Americans believe that Adolf Hitler killed more than Josef Stalin
68% of all Americans believing that Adolf Hitler killed more people than Josef Stalin. Half of all the Millennials consider communism a problem, and with young Americans recently showing an interest in socialism, public opinion has undergone significant shifts. in recent years.
By Borba de Souza4 years ago in The Swamp
Shock and Anger in Minneapolis: Protests Erupt After Woman Killed by U.S. Immigration Agent
The city of Minneapolis once again found itself at the center of national attention after protests erupted following the fatal shooting of a woman by a U.S. immigration agent. Demonstrators poured into the streets demanding answers, accountability, and justice, as grief and anger spread through communities already sensitive to issues of policing and federal enforcement. The incident has not only shaken the local community but has also reopened broader debates about the role of immigration authorities, the use of force, and the fragile trust between law enforcement and the public in the United States. What Happened? According to preliminary official statements, the woman was shot during an encounter involving a U.S. immigration enforcement officer. Authorities have confirmed her death but have released limited details about the circumstances, citing an ongoing investigation. Witness accounts and early reports vary, contributing to public frustration and suspicion. What is clear, however, is that the involvement of a federal immigration agent — rather than local police — has intensified scrutiny and raised urgent questions about jurisdiction, oversight, and operational conduct. In the hours following the shooting, news of the woman’s death spread rapidly through Minneapolis, triggering spontaneous gatherings that soon grew into organized protests. Protests Fill the Streets By evening, demonstrators had taken to major intersections and public spaces across Minneapolis. Protesters carried signs reading “Justice Now,” “No More Killings,” and “End Violent Enforcement,” while chanting demands for transparency and the release of body-camera footage. Community organizers emphasized that the protests were not only about one incident but about longstanding fears surrounding immigration enforcement practices, particularly in communities of color. While the demonstrations were largely peaceful, the emotional weight was undeniable. For many residents, the shooting reopened wounds left by previous high-profile deaths involving law enforcement in the city. Why Immigration Enforcement Is Under the Spotlight U.S. immigration agencies, such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), primarily focus on civil enforcement — detentions, deportations, and investigations related to immigration status. Unlike local police departments, they often operate with less public visibility. Critics argue that this lack of transparency creates dangerous gaps in accountability, especially when enforcement actions intersect with everyday community life. The fatal shooting in Minneapolis has intensified concerns about: Rules governing the use of deadly force by immigration agents Oversight of federal officers operating within cities Coordination — or lack thereof — between federal and local authorities The psychological impact of aggressive enforcement on immigrant communities Supporters of strict enforcement counter that agents face unpredictable and sometimes dangerous situations, but protesters argue that this cannot justify loss of civilian life. A City Shaped by History Minneapolis carries a unique historical context when it comes to police violence and public protest. The city became a global symbol of racial justice movements following the 2020 killing of George Floyd. That history has shaped how residents respond to incidents involving law enforcement. There is deep public sensitivity, a heightened expectation of accountability, and little patience for delayed or incomplete explanations. For many protesters, the shooting by an immigration agent felt like a continuation of a broader pattern, rather than an isolated tragedy. Official Responses and Investigations Federal authorities have stated that the shooting is under investigation and that standard procedures are being followed. Local officials have called for calm while acknowledging the community’s right to protest. Civil rights groups, however, are urging an independent investigation, arguing that internal reviews alone are insufficient to restore public trust. Elected officials at both city and state levels have demanded clarity on: Whether the agent was acting alone or as part of a task force What threat, if any, prompted the use of lethal force Whether body cameras or surveillance footage exist So far, the lack of detailed information has only fueled speculation and anger. Immigration Policy Meets Public Safety The incident arrives at a time when immigration policy remains one of the most divisive issues in American politics. Debates over border security, deportations, and federal enforcement powers dominate national discourse. For immigrant communities, the presence of federal agents is often associated with fear rather than protection. Advocates argue that aggressive enforcement strategies discourage people from cooperating with authorities, even in emergencies. The Minneapolis shooting underscores how immigration enforcement is no longer just a policy issue — it is a public safety issue with real human consequences. Community Voices and Grief Vigils have been held in honor of the woman who was killed, with candles, flowers, and handwritten messages lining sidewalks. Speakers at these gatherings emphasized compassion for the victim’s family and called for systemic change rather than temporary outrage. Faith leaders, activists, and local residents have urged authorities to listen rather than react defensively. “This isn’t just about one woman,” one protester said. “It’s about whether our lives are treated as disposable.” What Comes Next? As investigations continue, the future impact of the shooting remains uncertain. Protests are expected to continue until authorities provide clearer answers and demonstrate accountability. Legal experts note that the case could influence future policy discussions about: Limits on federal enforcement operations in cities Mandatory body cameras for immigration agents Stronger civilian oversight mechanisms Whether meaningful reform follows will depend largely on transparency — and on whether officials respond to public demands with action rather than rhetoric. Final Thoughts The death of a woman at the hands of a U.S. immigration agent has once again forced Minneapolis — and the nation — to confront difficult questions about power, accountability, and human dignity. In a city already shaped by protest and pain, the message from the streets is clear: justice delayed is justice denied. As demonstrators continue to march, one truth remains unavoidable — without trust, enforcement becomes fear, and without accountability, tragedy repeats itself.
By Muhammad Hassan6 days ago in The Swamp
FPS: The Last Flame Challenge Winners
Welcome to our first Winners Announcement of the year and to the final challenge in the Fall Poetry Series. The Last Flame invited writers to sit with endings, using fire as a central image to consider what remains when something burns out: ash, warmth, memory, silence, or the faint promise of what comes next. The strongest pieces treated endings as gradual rather than sudden, allowing them to flicker, dim, and linger.
By Vocal Curation Team6 days ago in Resources
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.